Until further notice, as announced at the India Joze / Lodging Trial benefit on Dec 2, the Sentencing Hearing will instead be on Thurs, Dec 6th. In Department 5 (five), at 4 pm, Superior Court of Santa Cruz County. 701 Ocean St, SC

Then, anyone who cares to, please join our "courtwatch" when the Judge give Lemaster her sentence for being GUILTY of Unlawful Lodging 647(e); GUILTY for being at PeaceCamp2010 in the wee hours; GUILTY of falling prey with others to a scheme by Sheriff Deputies to bust up the homeless-friendly protest; GUILTY of unfashionable freedom of movement and concern for others -- 3:30 pm, Department #5.

(actually, the jurors dealt only with that first "guilty")

If you're planning to submit a LETTER to the judge, suggestion is to have it filed/datestamped asap (prior to Thursday) so it will find it's way from Superior Court Clerks Office into the court files. (psst! keep a copy to share)

When a government building has encumbered access (as is now so popular, everywhere), the interior is not considered a public forum by the judicial branch, which means speech is aggressively chilled. As civics is a lost art in the USA, few know, nor care.

G, you can speak all you want outside the building. How would it make sense to have a 'public forum' in a courtroom, or even outside the courtroom? You don't have the right to get in a Sheriff's car either, even though it is public property.

(Sort of looks like the hole the city intentionally dug where the culturally historic cobblestone plaza USED TO BE next to Lulu Carpenter's)

But I digress... They have the right to keep protesters some distance from entrances to the COURT building. Or perhaps they'll just hire another $80,000 dollars worth of False Alarm guards to allow for the continuation of 'business as usual' without disturbance. (snigger)

When you do, notice the definitions of public forums (4 types, generally). As you meander through citations, you might stumble across a decision banning supporters from wearing expressive clothing, the critical point being the 'new' control of the entrance (AKA overpriced security theater) to the court. Sadly, that decision provides motive for the addition of yet more overpriced security theater, by government building managers (et al).

Speech has been also been chilled outside the Santa Cruz County courthouse, illegally (in my opinion, appeals in progress).

Of course I might be wrong, and an intelligent person might be able to show how, including citing case law, without sinking to FOXNews levels of pseudo-intellectual discourse. You are more than welcome to exceed expectations.

"G, you can speak all you want outside the building. How would it make sense to have a 'public forum' in a courtroom, or even outside the courtroom? You don't have the right to get in a Sheriff's car either, even though it is public property."

Given that you can't currently protest inside, it would seem the law stands. Ipso facto, if you'd like it in Latin. If you successfully sue to change that ruling, then I'd reconsider that case law supports your position.

Actually you can't "speak all you want to outside the building" because there's an anti-Occupy curfew from 7 PM to 7 AM all around the courthouse and county building. Unless you float in the air, of course.

Nor can you "speak all you want on the sidewalk or on any other public space" even outside the latest curfew zone. Given the new Wowak-Gallagher-Marigonda-Connolly surrealism, cops can announce you're "lodging" and proceed to disperse you (without even citing a riot act) while dumping the Constitution along the way using 647e as their excuse of the month. A handy tool to eliminate uncomfortable protest.

On any public property, including sidewalks, sheriffs may decide you are "lodging" even if you engaging in sustained First Amendment activity that doesn't block normal business (as Linda's didn't). In fact Linda was primarily on the courthouse steps at 4 in the morning blocking no one, interfering with no business, vandalizing nothing, creating no disturbance--there as a support person for a limited period of time. To hoodwink a jury into believing that's a criminal act, using the "lodging" canard shows the depths to which we have fallen. and how divorced juries are from a sense of real justice, given the pressures to accede to judical authority (no matter how unwarranted or erroneous).

To have intelligent-sounding people defending this decision is even worse.

None of this is about real crime, Linda's behavior, or 647e. It's all about silencing potentially serious protest against economic injustice and blatantly unequal treatment of poor people.

I don't get it. Linda's life is supposed to be about supporting the community, and she's fighting a 'sentence' of working community service for a whopping 1.5 hours/week for a year. Or regular hours for a week and a half. Along with 'unsupervised probation' (aka, nothing) for six months. The trial took more time! That's all well and good, but an appeal simply wastes taxpayer money. What is there to appeal? If she drops her appeal, I'll do all 60 hours.

Executive and legislative abuses of power require action by the judiciary. When a district attorney and a judge fail in their Constitutional duty (to protect the rights of the prosecuted), appellate judges must act.

An appeal victory becomes citable in other cases that abuse such power, which encourages a district attorney to refocus their prosecutorial discretion in a more rational manner.

Plus, you can't do someone else's service time. However HUFF will be delighted to take "Observer" up on their offer. We need a courtwatcher to keep an eye on prosecution-partial judges like Connolly. Come to the next HUFF meeting at 10 AM Wednesday 703 Pacific Sub Rosa Cafe. We'll find use for your skills. There's also a protest at City Hall next Tuesday night. Bring a sign.

..."Observer" would prefer the expense of harassing and prosecuting homeless people and peaceful protesters at taxpayer expense. Or perhaps simply intimidating activists into abandoning visible protests of this sort. Interesting agenda.

Homeless-ophobes and those who dislike protests that involve sitting or lying down on "public" property should always keep a copy of PC 647e handy to snitch on their local activist:

"...every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (e) Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it."

""...every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (e) Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it."

Nothing vague, unclear, or overbroad about that, is there?"

I don't get it Robert. Are you suggesting that people SHOULD be able to lodge in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it."?

Did you hit your head on a low-hanging cross beam in your house? What is wrong with you?

The point is that the legal definition of "lodging" is overly vague. The sheriffs citing Peace Camp 2010 participants didn't know the definition of "lodging" when they cited them. That it requires a judge to arbitrarily define "lodging" for juries so that different juries are given different definitions makes the law overly vague and only arbitrarily enforceable, which is how the SC Sheriffs and the SCPD were using it. It is being used to stifle First Amendment rights.

When I think of 'lodge' I think of the Moose Lodge. Sure, I was camping out on the courthouse steps, but I didn't see any moose around, so I figured I wasn't lodging. Guys with badges gave me a flier, but I never read the stuff they give me at the Moose Lodge, so I didn't read it.

The definition of lodging is significant for 647(e), and I personally witnessed the Santa Cruz County District Attorney's office and the Santa Cruz County Judiciary embarrass themselves to the precipice of potential disbarment, during their prosecutorial hijinks, as they led the juries by the nose, on that very point of law.

That is, of course, my opinion. Getting a written opinion, from higher courts, is a work in progress...

The point was made even more clearly by the testimony of Linda and the sheriffs that (a) others lounging about in chairs with stuff around them weren't cited for "lodging", (b) when she asked how she could sit on the steps keeping watch on an activist who was ill without "lodging", she was ignored and given a ticket, and (c) after getting her citation, she told to leave and it was not made clear how she could continue to be in the area (say exercising First Amendment rights) without violating the pretextual PC 647e.

The whole point was to break up the protest and yet appear to "respect" the right to protest. A year later in the Occupy protests, authorities became bolder and their repression balder. They simply banned nighttime presence outside the courthouse and county building at night, protesting or not. This curfew is still in force there in clear violation of the Constitution--a most obvious violation since banning assembly from 7 PM to 7 AM at the very seat of government--shocks the senses, for those who care about the most basic constitutional protections.

Unfortunately in Obamaland (or should I say Maurielloland or Wowakland), such concerns are apparently a thing of the past.

This illustrates the proto-fascist nature of local government. The power of the state — a kind of legal violence — is being misused to silence dissent. The Santa Cruz 11 trials are a perfect example of this.